Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: BC550144, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC550144    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 03/22/2024 – 8:30am  

Case No: BC550144                                   

Trial Date: 05/13/2024

Case Name: ARMAN YEGIYANTS v. HAGOP BARDAKJIAN ET AL

[TENTATIVE RULING ON DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER]

Moving Party: Defendant, Hagop Bardakjian

Responding Party: Plaintiffs, Arman Yegiyants and 10415 Commerce LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Defendant, Hagop Bardakjian, demurs to the First Supplemental Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Verified First Supplemental Complaint. This motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiffs on each of the grounds set forth herein in the following demurrer.

1. The First Supplemental Cause of Action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as detailed in California Code of Civil Procedure §430.10(e).

Moving Parties, for each of these reasons, move for an order of this Court sustaining the Demurrer and Motion to Strike without leave to amend.

This Demurrer and Motion to Strike is based on this notice, the pleadings, records, and files in this action, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the attached declarations and such evidence as may be presented at the hearing.”

Procedural
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b)):Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proof of Service; Request for Judicial Notice; Proposed Order; Friedman Declaration;

Opposition Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply as of 3/19/2024, reply was due 3/15/2024

MEET AND CONFER
A party filing a demurrer “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) “The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(2).)

Failure to sufficiently meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).)

Defendant’s counsel alleges he met and conferred but a resolution was not able to be met. (Decl. Friedman ¶4.)

LEGAL STANDARD
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda, (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) 

The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading … is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.)  

On demurrer, a trial court has an independent duty to “determine whether or not the … complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (Das v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 727, 734.)  Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) “Generally it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)

ANALYSIS

Declaratory Relief
Overall, Defendant’s demurrer is somewhat unclear, in the Court’s view.

Defendant demurs under § 430.10(e) on the basis of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Defendant does not state what facts must be alleged to successfully allege the elements of declaratory relief; nor does Defendant explain how Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege the required elements.

Instead, Defendant argues that because Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental Cause of Action for declaratory relief seeks declaratory relief as to the proper ownership of the Angeleno Companies but  Plaintiffs do not claim an interest in the Angeleno Companies, there can be no question that the First Supplemental Cause of Action and the ownership dispute involve identical parties and identical causes of action.

Defendants cite a case that allegedly states that the pendency of another action growing out of the same transaction is a ground for abatement of the second action.

Defendant then argues that Plaintiffs don’t have standing to bring this action because Plaintiffs are not the real parties in interest with respect to the relief being sought.

In Opposition, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they do not claim to own the Angeleno LLC, but argue that that does not deprive them of standing to seek a declaration as to the ownership of those LLCs. The Opposition also argues the declaratory relief claim isn’t subject to abatement because the two actions do not involve identical parties.

TENTATIVE RULING
The Court will hear argument. The briefs have not, in the Court’s view, clarified the relevant issues for the Court.

The Court’s tentative inclination is to deny the demurrer, but the Court will hear from the parties.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.